The constant emergence of new information and subsequent technologies generates controversy over government censorship and the essential imposition of an older, temporary response to acceptable social morality . Obscenity is not a definable entity, but is dynamic and relies on the evolving availability of knowledge that individuals use to formulate their perceptions of certain acts or assumptions. Contraception has long been a subject of controversy between malleable populations and governments which, through censorship, give a specific designation to obscenity. In Walker v. Popenoe (1945), Dr Paul Popenoe challenged the Postmaster General's decision to prohibit the distribution of his pamphlet entitled "Preparing for Marriage" on the grounds that the information Popenoe provided on sexual fulfillment and contraception within marriage is obscene and violates the obscenity rules of the Comstock Act of 1873. This article will argue that the court's decision in favor of Popenoe's pamphlet [and the ACLU's extensive involvement] was more indicative of the desire to defend the constitutional freedoms and even the growing legitimization of the medical profession. profession at the expense of a conscious effort to improve women's reproductive rights. Despite the Postmaster General's banning of Popenoe's pamphlet as obscene material, Popenoe's reference to contraception and its potential contribution to sexual freedom in a more fulfilling marriage has had many contemporary applications. Dr. Paul Popenoe wrote “Preparing for Marriage” with the goal of helping newlyweds build marital bonds that will lead to more fulfilling and lasting marriages. According to Popenoe, "certain types of sexual behavior are more conducive than others to the happiness and permanence of marriage...... middle of the newspaper ...... publishing medical and sexual material on contraception , there was minimal conscious effort. The Court's resolution in Walker v. Popenoe places much more emphasis on individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution (First and Fifth Amendments) and the emerging legitimacy of the American medical profession than on conscious progress to improve the women's rights. rights. A more contemporary convergence of the private and public spheres in new medical applications in everyday life also undermines women's rights to reproductive privacy and sexual freedom. The ACLU's fundamental neglect of Virginia Duncombe as a key contributor to the case signifies a societal disregard for women's privileges in the early and mid-20th century, even regarding issues that concern mainly their own well-being, such as contraception..